[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24662-24666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11708]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit; Agency Information 
Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice of information collection under review; implementation 
of Section 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement 
Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is being sought for 
the information collection listed below. This proposed information 
collection was previously published on April 10, 1996, in the Federal 
Register and allowed 60 days for public comment. A summary of these 
comments are included at the end of this notice.
    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for 
public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until 
June 5, 1997. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 
1320.10. Written comments and suggestions regarding the estimated 
public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, 
D.C., 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via 
facsimile to 202-395-7285.
    Comments may also be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 
Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, 
Attention: Department Clearance Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted 
to DOJ via fascimile to 202-514-1534.
    The purpose of this notice is to request written comments and 
suggestions from the public, including telecommunications carriers, and 
affected agencies should address one or more of the following points:
    (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) minimize the burden of collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.)
    Overview of this Information Collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: NEW COLLECTION: The type of 
information acquired is required to be furnished by law in terms of a 
carrier statement, as set forth in subsection 104(d) of the 
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Pub. L. 103-
414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). A template, which is not mandatory, has been 
developed through the consultative process with the telecommunications 
industry to facilitate submission of the telecommunications carrier 
statements.

[[Page 24663]]

Such information is quantitative and qualitative data necessary to 
identify any systems or services of a telecommunications carrier that 
do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of 
interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified 
in the final capacity notice to subsection 104(a) of CALEA.
    (2) The title of the information collection: ``Telecommunications 
Carrier Statement.''
    (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collections; Form number: None. Sponsored 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department 
of Justice.
    (4) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief 
abstract; BUSINESS OR OTHER FOR PROFIT: Telecommunications carrier, as 
defined in CALEA subsection 102(8), will respond.
    The collected data will be used in conjunction with law enforcement 
priorities and other factors to determine the telecommunications 
carriers that may be eligible for cost reimbursement according to 
section 104.
    The amount and type of information collected will be minimized to 
ensure that the submission of this data by telecommunications carriers 
will not be burdensome nor unreasonable. Each telecommunications 
carrier will submit a statement identifying any of its systems or 
services that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously 
the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices 
as set forth in the final capacity notice.
    Based on consultation with industry, information solicited to 
specifically identify such systems and services that cannot meet the 
estimated capacity requirements will include: Common Language Location 
Identifier (CLLI) code or equivalent identifier, switch model or other 
system or service type, and the city and state where the system or 
service is located. Unique information required for wireline systems 
and services would include the host CLLI code if the system or service 
is a remote and the county name(s) that the system or service serves. 
Unique information required for wireless systems and services would 
include the Metropolitan or Rural Service Area number(s), or the 
Metropolitan or Basic Trading Area number(s) served by the system or 
service.
    Confidentiality regarding the data received from the 
telecommunications carriers will be protected by statute, regulation, 
and through non-disclosure agreements as necessary.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The FBI 
estimates that there are approximately three-thousand four-hundred 
ninety-seven (3,497) telecommunications carriers, with approximately 
twenty-three thousand (23,000) unique systems or services, that will be 
affected by this collection of information. The total amount of time 
required to complete the Telecommunications Carrier Statement will 
vary, depending upon the total number of systems and services that the 
telecommunications carrier deploys that provide a customer or 
subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct 
communications. The time required to read and prepare information, for 
one system or service is estimated at 10 minutes. There is also an 
associated startup time per carrier that is estimated at 2 hours. This 
startup time consists of reading the Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement and determining data sources.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection is 10,904 hours. These estimates were derived from 
close consultation with industry.
    Public comment on this proposed information collection is strongly 
encouraged.

Summary of Comments to the 60-Day Notice

    Based on industry comments and to conform with the Second Notice of 
Capacity that was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 
1997, the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been 
changed to:
    (a) Remove the capacity field. This information is no longer 
required because estimates of actual and maximum capacity requirements 
are being provided by geographical location in Appendices sections A 
through D of the Second Notice of Capacity.
    (b) Associate the county(s) field to be unique information required 
for wireline systems and services only.

Pacific Telesis Group (PTG)

     PTG is concerned that the startup time does not include 
time required to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity Requirements 
itself and match up switch capability with law enforcement needs. This 
is necessary before the template can be populated, and the time does 
not appear to be included in current estimates of hours required to 
complete the survey.
    Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part 
that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General 
of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), 
a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a 
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have 
the capacity to accommodate.'' The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the 
hour burden for startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement and determine data sources. It was never intended to include 
time to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity.
     PTG contends that it is extraordinarily difficult to 
determine the county for each prefix served by a switch. The difficulty 
escalates further for those switches located near county boundaries and 
which include prefixes that serve multiple counties. The work to make 
these identifications would be administratively burdensome and labor 
intensive, and would certainly exceed the ten-minute parameter utilized 
by TILU. PTG would support a change to the provision of information 
regarding county in which a switch resides, rather than counties served 
by each prefix within a switch.
    Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in 
the traditional engineering and planning database, i.e., Local Switch 
Demand and Facility (LSD&F) database, this information is available in 
other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map Information. Also, 
software is available that provides information on wirecenter serving 
areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call 
that they were able to extract county information from their E911 
database. The mechanized Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template 
allows for the import of data from a database and provides instructions 
for dealing with imports from multiple databases.

United States Telephone Association (USTA)

     USTA recommends that the final review and public comment 
period be provided on this notice following the final promulgation of 
the Final Notice of Capacity requirements and Cost Recovery Procedures. 
Since the carrier statement is intended to respond to a notice of 
capacity requirements, responding to item 3c (``capacity'') is 
problematic. In short, the ability of carriers to complete column 3c, 
and the burden imposed by column 3c is directly related to the 
definition of

[[Page 24664]]

capacity in the Final Notice of Capacity requirements.
    Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part 
that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General 
of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), 
a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a 
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have 
the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' This PRA Carrier Statement 
requires a minimum of 90 days for comment (one 60 day comment period 
and the current 30 day comment period). If the PRA Carrier Statement 
was deferred until after the issuance of the Final Notice of Capacity, 
the template would be unavailable for most of the 180 days. 
Furthermore, template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the 
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
     USTA believes that the template should apply to switches 
alone.
    Response: The ``Equipment Type,'' item 3b, is intended for listing 
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to 
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, 
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity 
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) 
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the 
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to 
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the 
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services 
that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The 
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their 
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail 
System) that provides call identifying information or call content as 
identified in CALEA Section 103.
     USTA is not convinced that the burden imposed on carriers, 
especially small companies, by completing the template will be 
manageable as is implied in the notice [of Information Collection]. 
Given the lack of certain key definitions and terms upon which the 
template is based (e.g., capacity, service), this burden in fact could 
be significant.
    Response: The concern about burden is based on lack of definitions 
such as capacity and service. The request for capacity information has 
been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. 
With regard to services, CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states 
in part that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney 
General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) 
or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney 
General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do 
not have the capacity to accommodate * * *''. The telecommunications 
carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other 
network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides 
call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA 
Section 103.
     CALEA requires carriers to be in compliance with the Act's 
capabilities requirements by October 1998. However, carriers are given 
three years following the publication of the Final Notice of Capacity 
in which to comply with the capacity requirements. USTA understands 
that TILU considers the operative deadline for compliance with the Act 
therefore is contingent on capacity requirements deadline, not the 
capabilities requirements deadline. USTA seeks final clarification of 
this issue.
    Response: The FBI has no statutory authority to countermand the 
intentions of the Congress, and it has no authority to waive the 
statutory compliance dates specified in CALEA. There is, however, a 
provision and mechanism under CALEA, grounded in the principle of 
reasonableness, that offers relief to telecommunications carriers where 
there is a prospect that the capability assistance compliance deadline 
cannot be met. Section 107 of CALEA permits telecommunications carriers 
to seek an extension(s) of time from the FCC in order to achieve 
compliance with the assistance capability requirements under 
circumstances where a carrier can show that compliance with those 
requirements is not reasonably achievable through the application of 
available technology during the compliance period specified in Section 
111. The Commission may grant such an extension after consultation with 
the Attorney General in those cases where such an extension is 
reasonably warranted. Since CALEA was enacted, it is generally 
understood that various carriers and manufacturers have moved at 
different paces in pursuing CALEA capability solutions. Given this, 
there is support for the perspective that CALEA's provisions, which 
contain mechanisms for reasonable treatment and compliance date 
extensions in special cases, should be utilized as enacted.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

     BellSouth is unable to estimate the amount of time 
required to complete a carrier statement which seeks data concerning 
the capacity of a system or service that is not a switch with a CLLI 
code.
    Response: The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing 
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to 
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, 
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity 
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) 
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the 
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to 
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the 
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services 
that do not have a capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The 
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their 
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail 
System) that provides call identifying information or call content as 
identified in CALEA Section 103.

Ameritech

     Although the Notice states that carriers should provide 
information identifying ``systems and services'', the FBI should 
acknowledge that carriers will be providing information only regarding 
their switches. More importantly however, although the FBI's Electronic 
Surveillance Interface Document lists different services which the FBI 
views as subject to CALEA, the generic requirements [industry standard] 
currently being finalized, focus exclusively on building `wiretap 
capability' within the switch.
    Response: The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing 
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to 
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, 
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity 
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) 
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the 
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to 
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the 
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services 
that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The

[[Page 24665]]

telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their 
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail 
System) that does not have the capacity to accommodate the call 
identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section 
103.
     Ameritech points out that the ``capacity'' of the switch 
has yet to be defined by the FBI.
    Response: Law enforcement has defined capacity in the Second Notice 
of Capacity by geographic area as required in CALEA. The switch 
capacity is not required in the Telecommunications Carrier Statement. 
Therefore, template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the 
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.

SBC Communications Inc.

     The estimate of time required to prepare the 
Telecommunications Carrier Statement, whether using template or not, is 
potentially understated. It is in the estimation of capacity that most 
of the work involved in the preparation of a Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement will occur, not in the preparation of the form itself. SBC 
estimates that it spent a minimum of 64 hours working on the Initial 
Capacity Notice developing data that will be used in filling out the 
Telecommunications Carrier Statement * * *.
    Response: The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour burden for 
startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and 
determine data sources. It was never intended to include time to 
evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity. The hour burden estimates were 
developed through the consultative process with the ECSP Committee. One 
of the assumptions was that most of the data could be obtained from the 
Local Switch Demand and Facilities (LSD&F) database or its equivalent. 
The concern that most of the work will involve capacity estimation will 
be eliminated because item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the 
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
     Serving areas extend far beyond the location of the switch 
or other facility and are not kept by county in the ordinary course of 
business.
    Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in 
the traditional engineering and planning database (e.g., LSD&F), this 
information is available in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter 
Map Information. Also, software is available that provides information 
on wirecenter serving areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP 
Subcommittee conference call that they were able to extract county 
information from their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications 
Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of data from a 
database and provides instructions for dealing with imports from 
multiple databases.
     Concern was expressed about capacity requirements being 
stated based upon the conditions at the time of collection and that 
over time the requirements would change. SBC stated that ongoing 
collection and validation of data to determine capacity would exceed 
the time estimates in the Carrier Statement Notice.
    Response: The Second Notice of Capacity issues estimated actual and 
maximum capacity requirements in actual numbers. A change in the 
requirements would only occur on the issuance of a new Notice of 
Capacity, which would require a response.

MFS Communications Company, Inc.

     MFS states, ``It is not clear that the information sought 
will be comprehensive or very useful to the FBI in fulfilling its 
notice requirements under CALEA for three major reasons'' that are 
listed.
    First, the FBI's survey of existing switches and telecommunications 
capacity will likely capture only a minority of telecommunications 
carriers and will provide a distorted view of the industry. With the 
enactment of the Telecommunications Act, a number of new firms--like 
MFS--can be expected to enter or greatly expand their operations in the 
telecommunications market over the next four years. Obviously, those 
new entrants' capacity and networks, particularly those entrants who 
have not yet entered the market, will not be included. The 
Telecommunications Act also permits carriers to enter local telephone 
markets as resellers of local service capacity (e.g., AT&T buys 
capacity from NYNEX and resells it as local service). The impact of 
such resale activities on an aggregate estimate of capacity are 
unclear.
    Second, CALEA includes only public telecommunications networks, and 
excludes private networks. So long as the definition of private 
networks is unclear, firms can minimize their CALEA reporting 
requirements and obligations if they unilaterally classify facilities 
as ``private network'' facilities. Often there is not a crisp 
distinction between public and private telecommunications networks and 
services, so there is a strong possibility that the survey will include 
a mismatch of services. There are many firms, such as shared tenant 
services (STS) providers that provide telephone service to the tenants 
of a building or campus and it is not clear whether the capacity of 
such offerings should be included.
    Third, CALEA excludes information services. Again, a firm's CALEA 
obligations can be minimized to the extent that it unilaterally 
classifies its activities as information services. So long as the 
precise scope of information and telecommunications services is not 
defined, some firms will report capacity that others would not.
    Response: As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT 
``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a 
Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a 
telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a 
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have 
the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, 
pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under 
such subsection.'' The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is 
not a survey and is not mandatory. The Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement Template was developed through the consultative process with 
industry representatives to facilitate submission of the Carrier 
Statement. The information requested will be used by law enforcement in 
conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to 
determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that require 
immediate modification.
    In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provided a notice 
of estimated capacity requirements by geographic area and has selected 
counties as the appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements 
for telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service (i.e., 
wireline carriers). Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists 
all actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. These 
requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content 
interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying 
information for each county in the United States and its territories. 
Wireline carriers may ascertain the actual and maximum capacity 
requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A the 
county (or counties) for which they offer local exchange service.
    Law enforcement's county capacity requirements are based on 
historical interception data and represent its interception needs 
anywhere in the county. The county requirements apply to all existing 
and any future wireline

[[Page 24666]]

carriers offering local exchange service in each county, regardless of 
equipment type used or customer base.
    CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as defined in 
section 102(8). Notices will eventually be issued covering all 
telecommunications carriers. However, the Second Notice of Capacity and 
its associated Final Notice of Capacity should be viewed as a first 
phase application to telecommunications carriers offering services that 
are of most immediate concern to law enforcement--that is, those 
telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service and certain 
commercial mobile radio services, specifically cellular service and 
personal communications service (PCS).
    The exclusion from the notice of certain telecommunications 
carriers that have services deployed currently or anticipate deploying 
services in the near term does not exempt them from obligations under 
CALEA.
     The hour burden depends on how each carrier interprets the 
meaning of capacity.
    Response: The Second Notice of Capacity provides capacity 
requirements based on geographic area and states the estimated actual 
and maximum capacity numbers and not a percentage. Also, item 3c 
(``capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement Template and therefore should not impact the estimated hour 
burden to respondents.

Synacom Technology, Inc.

     Synacom states, ``Law enforcement should provide some 
guidance as to which features and services should be accessible and 
then determine the capacity required for each feature and service. This 
is to prevent overbuilding the intercept capacity.'' Also, ``The 
information requested is largely unnecessary, because its resolution is 
not adequate to accurately measure compliance with neither the CALEA 
capability requirements nor the capacity notice.''
    Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was 
developed through the consultative process with industry 
representatives. The information requested will be used by law 
enforcement in conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other 
factors to determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services 
that require immediate modification.
     Synacom also states, ``* * * the burden to gather the 
required information is much more difficult to gather as it requires 
technical expertise to evaluate whether the systems of the 
telecommunications service provider collectively provide the required 
access for each of several independent features and services.''
    Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was 
simplified to its present form through the consultative process with 
the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications carriers need 
only list systems and services that do not meet the requirements of 
CALEA subsection 104(d). If any system or service does not meet the 
requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d), it must be reported.
     Synacom states that, ``There should be a `jurisdiction' 
column instead of the `county', `city', and `state' columns.'' Also, 
``the `MSA, RSA, MTA, or BTA' field is largely irrelevant.''
    Response: In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement 
provides a notice of estimated capacity requirements by geographical 
area and has selected counties and market as the appropriate basis for 
expressing capacity requirements for telecommunications carriers 
offering local exchange service. Appendix A of the Second Notice of 
Capacity lists all estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements 
by county. The selection of county as a means to define law enforcement 
requirements takes into consideration, by its very nature, a 
longstanding territorial location that is unchanged, well documented, 
is understandable to both law enforcement and industry, and takes into 
consideration a specific law enforcement jurisdiction. These 
requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content 
interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying 
information for each county in the United States and its territories. 
Wireline carriers may ascertain the estimated actual and maximum 
capacity requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A 
the county (or counties) or Appendices B, C, D for which they offer 
local exchange service.
    Law enforcement's county or market capacity requirements are based 
on historical interception data and represent its interception needs 
anywhere in the county or market. The county or market requirements 
apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers offering local 
exchange service in each county, regardless of equipment type used or 
customer base.
    For wireless carriers, individual county boundaries were not 
considered to be feasible geographic designations for identifying 
capacity requirements. Instead, law enforcement determined that the 
wireless market service area would be the most appropriate geographic 
designations. Although these areas comprise sets of counties, the use 
of such market service areas best takes into account the greatest 
inherent mobility of wireless subscribers. What is most important is 
that historical information on wireless interceptions could only be 
associated with market service areas.
    Therefore, the county(s) field of the Telecommunications Carrier 
Statement Template is information required for wireline systems and 
services only.

    Dated: April 30, 1997.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-11708 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M